IMO- If the debtors allow this to continue through to a written opinion, the POR will be denied for the second time. After listening to 7 days of hearings, I feel the EC and TPS councils have adequately proven that both IT and Bad Faith negotiations have occured. If I'm correct and the POR and GSA are dead in the water as a result of the Court's opinion, I suspect the next logical step would be for a motion to be filed requesting a trustee to oversee the management of the debtor's estate.
Once a trustee is in place, and only after that trustee has proven that they are unbias toward the debtor or SNHs, SG would begin the true estate asset disclosures. The reason why I believe SG has this asset information tucked away is the fact that PJS has been working diligently for many many months, yet only provided testimony about the application of IRC rules and valuation of WMMRIC based on Blackstones model. So what valuations were they conducting? My guess is the remaining assets being hidden from the bankruptcy court. However, no need to play that card until the debtor have lost all credibility with the court. EC must feel confident of thier evidence and legal arguments proving IT. Further demonstrated by walking away from the settlement negotiations.
Here's kind of what I'm thinking;
POR will be denied
GSA will not be renewed after expiration
Disallowance of SNH claims / application of FJR
Estate Trustee appointed
True Assets revealed by SG showing the real estate value.
With equity in control, motion for ruling on $4 bil deposits.
Tax sharing agreements abandoned, all tax refunds go into the estate (If FDIC/JPM feel entitled to them, let them prove it in court, meanwhile, the estate can collect the interest)
Litigation against JPM and FDIC resumed outside bankruptcy court.
New POR filed by EC not based on liquidation but more geared to reorganization, thus, keeping holders of debt instruments and equity shares in tact (no need to liquidate bonds that aren't due for 15 more years).
Re-org WMI emerges as holding company with same equity ownership to preserve NOLS and have the ability to aquire new subs.
Or..... they could just settle before an opinion is issued and avoid a lot of sleepless nights and bankruptcy fraud. It would make sense for a settlement to come sooner than later for the simple reason that an opinion can come anytime after the closing arguments, but the longer they delay the more the likelihood that the court will hand down the new "Law of the Case". At that point, ther's no "Do-Overs", just game over!!!!
Byrd
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
